Discuss the latest comic book news and front page articles, read or post your own reviews of comics, and talk about anything comic book related. Threads from the two subforums below will also show up here. News Stand topics can also be read and posted in from The Asylum.

habitual wrote:OK I'll give you that, I'll still stand by it took them forever, 40 years is a long god damn time.

X-men was good, not great, still not making any headway.

Hab

Sorry but you can't really use the 50 years argument. It took DC 40 years to make a Superman movie in 1978. So really you should start there on where Marvel should have gotten off their ass and started make good movies.

Even then you have to realize that Marvel didn't have the luxury of being owned by a multimedia conglomerate like WB.

Is Image really winning if their best books are basically indie creator-owned stuff and not editorially managed stories? Don't get me wrong, they do have great books in that vein but giving the credit to Image as a company for giving us these things when all they are is a conduit for creators to manifest their stuff?

BTW season 3 basically validated Punchy on the Walking Dead tv show thing.

Also from their FAQ, to clarify their business model. Obviously this would be different if you are working on say a Spawn book for Todd or whatever and I believe Kirkman's Skybound imprint takes a piece if you publish through him.

"How does publishing a comic book or graphic novel through Image work?

Image was set up so that creators could do what they want with their creations, and reap the benefits financially. When a book is published by Image, creators are not paid up front. It can sometimes be two or three months before one sees money from a book. It sounds rough, and it most definitely can be. But if it’s done right, the payoff can be far more rewarding than producing a book in the conventional manner.

When the creator does finally get paid, they get paid on what their book makes after the cost of printing and Image’s modest office fee, which covers solicitations, traffic, production, and some promotion of the book. We make no more money off of our highest selling book than we do our lowest."

fieldy snuts wrote:Is Image really winning if their best books are basically indie creator-owned stuff and not editorially managed stories? Don't get me wrong, they do have great books in that vein but giving the credit to Image as a company for giving us these things when all they are is a conduit for creators to manifest their stuff?

BTW season 3 basically validated Punchy on the Walking Dead tv show thing.

I think that they deserve credit for their business model. Between Image, DC and Marvel, we have three very different models. At Image, creators have complete authority over their books. At DC, editors have complete authority over their books. Marvel's is a bit of compromise between the two, giving creators significant leeway while editorial retains ultimate authority. Image has really driven the growth of the industry in the last couple of years, so they are winning. Image deserves credit for realizing that there's a better way of doing things.